Mexico weekly ledger., 1887-03-03

of the fact that a trial had been had
by the state VS.. Hall on n of the
eleven indictments returned at the Oc-
tober term ana the record did not show
which one or on whose testimony he
had been convicted or what sale he wa
convicted for making, and rs these six
indictments covered about the same
period as the one on which the trial
and conviction was had. Fol this rea.
son alone / would have been exceeding
ly doubtful if Hall could have been
convicted at all on anv of the six. The
reason for the stay of execution was
that Hall promised in consideration of
a stay he would keep out Of the drug
business and sell no more liquor. Had
/ not not settled these cases as i
did and had there been q trial and con-
victions had, the cases would doubtless
have been appealed, and the result
would have been a great deal ofexpense
to the state and if the supreme court
had held that a conviction by the city
was a bar to a prosecution for the same
otfense by the state as some of the
state courts have held then the state
would have gotten nothing and been
out considerable money for costs.
STATE VS.. BEDELL.
The statement has been made that /
represented both the state and the de-
PENDANT in the case of the state VS.. Be-
dell after l became prosecuting attor-
ney. That is simply a falsehood. l
never in any way represented the state
in the case of the state VS.. Bedell, Ell
ther in court or out of court and my
whole connection with 1t from the be-
ginning of the case until the present
time has been that of attorney for the
defendant, ana under the statute, Sec.
ton SIS, / could not act for the state.
(Sec. 51S, r. S. Mo- Now under the
same statute was it my duty to have
the court assign counsel for the state.
The reasons given by Judge Robinson
as to why he did not assign counsel
show hat no counsel was needed. l,
was pending upon a motion for q new
trial and presented the question as tc
whether a man could be convicted by
both the city and state for the same of
tense. 1t was admitted by Bucknel
when the case was tried that Bedell
had been convicted by the city for the
same offense charged in the indictment
Judge Forrist said: docs any one
present desire to ask Mr.. Robertson any
questions about the case of the state
VS.. Bedell, or does any n present de-
sire to make any statement about thi.
case or to contradict any statement
Mr.. Robertson has made about it,"
VS.. ARTIN
1 will state in connection with thes,
cases, state VS.. Martin, that when /.
went into Office, / found that the record
showed Martin had been convicted il
nineteen cases, but / found also tina
Buckner, my predecessor or somebod,
else had permitted him to go home, ant
it was represented to me that he wa
not to be incarcerated in Jail after con
victicn and was to be released upon th,
payment Of 500. l took the prope
steps to have him arrested and brough
to Jail, but he ran away and was re
ported to hove left the state, but at tn
: June term he appeared here M file,
a motion to stay execution based upol
the ground that Mr.. Buckner had in
weighed him into entering pleas Q
guilty in the nineteen cases. l mad
an effort to have them disposed of a
the October term. / succeeded in get
ting Buckner here, but when l got hir
here the defendant could not appea
. on account of sickness and hence tn
the docket yet and were continued q
the last Janary term.
sTATE VS.. BEDELL.
Ben. G. johnson, Circuit Clerk, j
> anwer to the question whether Nj
: Robertson ever appeared or acted fo
the state against Bedell said: "He di
not" and in explanation stated to tn
committee that he had omitted to pu
the motion on the docket al the Jun
term. That he docketed it after tn
June term was over. Continuing. M
johnson said: 81 did it at my own sul
gestion as knew it ought to be Their,
, After the June term of court some on
= may have called my attention to it, q
asked about the motion in the Bede
case and then l entered it on my docl
1 ct.
AFTERNOON.
q Since we adjourned for dinner, I wer
to see Mr.. CAN'T and Mr.. Spence, tw
members of the late grand jury, and in
: sisted upon their coming over here be
S fore the committee They both refu,
: ed to come, saying at the same tim
that they did not intend the report a
e a reflection upon either Judge Robinso
: or myself. l asked them who prepare
0 the report or suggested il and who cal
, ed their attention to the records, br
= they both refused to state. l stated I
: Mr.. Spense hat / saw Bucknsr com
out of the grand jury ROOM, and b
1 admitted that Buckner was in tn
, grand jury room, but said they wei
! not in session, but refused to state wht
he was there for or doing in there.
l will also so state that in a CONVEX
I sation with Mr., Underwood (he woul
not state what Buckner said) but sal
e he was in Buckner's room at the hot,
: during the sitting of the grand jur
and he intimated to me that Buekne
, had something to do with the repo
:, but would not say so.
j suppose the committee will obsery
: that the notice on Buckner has bee
served and that he was notified to b
y present heretofore it.